The keynote speaker is Kathleen McGowan, who has several best-selling books on miracles and religion. I’ll ask her for tips, but I’m afraid she might tell me her success is dependent on being a descendant of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

First rule of New Age: deny that you are New Age. Then speak breathlessly about a coming paradigm shift in humanity’s recognition and understanding of its spiritual foundation, resulting in a neoteric epoch. But no, I’m not a New Ager.

The Spiritual-but-not-religious have a love-hate relationship with science. They will enthusiastically insist that modern science is now proving what the mystics have been saying all along, mangling quantum physics and dangling parapsychology as their evidence. There is no conflict between science and spirituality. Soon, very soon, the mainstream will agree with the brave maverick scientists who are on the cutting edge of new discoveries. Science is on their side.

Push against this view with some details however and watch for accusations of “scientism” and complaints that there are Ways of Knowing which make their beliefs immune to outside criticism. Science is evil.

They flip back and forth, depending on the individual, the situation, and the mood.

“Think even deeper?”

Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial. – Friedrich Nietzsche

@PZ: don’t you usually request diversity on the speakers list before you agree to speak at these sorts of events? The speakers list seem to be quite pale and mostly male. At least now we know it’s not just the atheist community that seems to have that problem…

I know. That’s perplexing. Most conventions like this are careful to make sure that they are an open-minded, welcoming, supportive environment and those who attend need not fear that anyone will challenge the validity of the truths they seek.

There are many options to choose from on why you were invited:

1.) The people putting this together really think the science supports them and they believe they can hold their ground against a critic.

2.) They’re hoping you rant, rave, or do other things which will show everybody what happens when you become a materialist atheist skeptic meanie.

3.) They think you will draw attendees from a demographic they want.

I’m not going to put 4.) they are under the mistaken impression that you will be so happy to see some nice, science-friendly liberal folks who reject organized religion and yet manage to be spiritual that you will go all soft, giving them the coveted Atheist-Seal-of-Approval (“no, there’s no problem with YOUR religion — if only all religions were like yours I’d never say a peep of complaint.”) Not even New Agers could be that clueless.

PZ, it looks like you’re the token skeptic, which means that you’re the one everyone there will be rooting against. You represent the dark side of reason and logic, which are preventing you from being among the enlightened. Probably a lot of people will try to “save” you by giving you their “unassailable” arguments for woo.

If you see a bunch of speakers and/or audience members coming towards you with torches and pitchforks, run!

Don’t forget the possibility that this is supposed to be some kind of ambush :-

Step 1 – Get PZ, a well known atheist and skeptical blogger, to attend the convention as a speaker.

Step 2 – Pack the audience with the woo-addled who can be depended upon to be entirely immune to reason and to lap up the talking points of the various woo-peddlars and scheisters who make up the other attendees, while yelling the equivalent of ‘checkmate, atheists!’ at PZ on cue.

Step 3 – Engage in a rigged pseudo-debate choreographed to give the impression that PZ was overwhelmed by ‘superior arguments’ while being a nasty atheist meanie.

Step 4 – Spin the outcome in the various newage/alt-science rags as the great victory of woo over the ‘narrow-minded high priest of the church of scientism’.

Go for immortality.
Bad strategies:
As a philanthropist, General or Politician, you get a hospital wing, battleship or office building named after you.
Building or wing falls down or after 50 years is torn down, battleship sinks or at least becomes obsolete.
No, immortality is obtained by having a unit named after you: e.g. Gauss, Tesla, Watt.

I propose that the unit for woo be named the PZ. With it we can work out quantitative measurements of spirituality and pseudoscience. Pastors can be rated in PZs per second, homeopathic remedies will be in PZs per milliliter. Real sciency claims can be made and defended.

Sometimes an obelisk is just an obelisk. But when your poster has a giant obelisk penetrating the words “even deeper”, well…

Nope – nothing at all creepy about that not-even-remotely-phallic obelisk penetrating that in-no-way-suggestive text. Nothing to see here folks. Move along, move along…

————————–

I can’t decide if that awful poster represents an unintentional Freudian slip in visual form that speaks volumes about the mental state of whoever commissioned it, or if it was cynically designed that way to appeal to the regressive sexist arsehat crowd as PZ suggests.

The keynote speaker is Kathleen McGowan, who has several best-selling books on miracles and religion. I’ll ask her for tips, but I’m afraid she might tell me her success is dependent on being a descendant of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

This is put on by the guy PZ debated ancient aliens with at Convergence last summer. The SF oriented crowd was not overly impressed with the Paradigm crew, who I think were present at Convergence to promote last year’s version of the event PZ is attending this year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4cM6Fwf2U

Are you sure they’ve invited the “right” PZ Myers? Couldn’t there be someone else with that name who would be more — um — suitable?

True story: I once was a side player in a very important event where the organizers had invited the “wrong” John Bartlett to speak. They wanted John Bartlett (Duke), not John Bartlett (Johns Hopkins). Or vice versa, I forget. Both were prominent names in the HIV research arena…or should I say both were prominent name in the HIV research arena.

Great embarrassment all around. John Bartlett The Wrong was nonplussed, as this was not the first time the two had been mistaken for one-another. He even admitted to occasionally receiving checks meant for the other — he was kind enough to forward them to the correct person.

Eventually, we had them both on a program. It was great fun, as they had never met (and were not in any way related).

Ah, I’m receiving an astral projection…I see an MC at the podium introducing PZ. I see PZ walking up to the stage. On the left is an Egyptian obelisk, but it’s only 20 inches tall. A pair of dwarves dressed as pharoahs dance around it.
On the right, I see a giant set of scales. And in one of the pans sits…A DUCK!

denaturesd,
There was no “Paradigm crew” at Convergence, nor at the Debate for the SkepChick-oriented crowd.

I was at Convergence as a presenting author, and had been invited by a very friendly pair from SkepChicks to be part of a “conversation about ancient aliens.”

Once I was seated at the table on the stage, minutes before it started I was told it was a “formal debate” with PZ and Greg Leighton(sp?). I hadn’t been told I should be prepared to debate an evolutionary biologist nor a Harvard PhD in archaeology – hell, I wasn’t even told that I would have to debate anyone, let alone men with the status and credentials of these two. But I did the best I could in what I was told would be a “fun conversation” on the topic. haha.

And no doubt about it, I had a good time, because I took none of the skeptic-packed crowd’s heckling too personally. Despite not being prepared for a debate, and not having access to my iPad or tablet – like PZ and Doug had, complete with audience members texting in messages – I still had a good time. As it was meant to be. I am sure it made for good entertainment.

After the debate, up in the SkepChicks’ party room, I invited PZ to come and do it again at the Paradigm Symposium, where the audience may be different, but which would certainly not be disrespectful.

PZ accepted. He couldnt do last October’s event, but said he’d be here this year. That event is here in Minneapolis this October.

Looking forward to treating PZ with the same respect every other guest presenter and speaker will get.

Personally I think the reason for the dragon myth is the first discoveries of big dinosaur fossils in antiquity. As regards to von Däniken’s memes, no, supercivilisations will send smart dust, not biological astronauts.

Did you give a talk about alien biology once? Maybe that’s the reason? A talk on how to recognise pseudoscience or the importance of an open mind but not so open your brain falls out causing your hair to pop up.

PZ, be sure to use nothing less than Reynolds Wrap Heavy Duty aluminum foil to prepare your protective headgear. Those knockoff brands don’t have the density required to prevent the absorption of q-rays emitted during the regular abduction and visitation events that occur in proximity to these psi-sensitive types. I should know, it was the only thing that saved me when I went to Galaxy Con at the world-renowned Roswell La Quinta last year. Be sure to fasten your seat belt, too. It makes it harder for the aliens to suck you out of your car.

I’m actually interested to see how you’re treated there. I anticipate alot of whistles and heckiling while you speak.

I don’t. My guess is that he will be treated very politely. After all, these are open-minded, spiritually evolved beings who avoid negative energy and come only in peace. I would, however, anticipate a fair number opting out of PZ’s talk (negative energy!) and maybe one or two people with shaking voices sharing long personal stories in Q&A afterwards.

I never claimed I was “ambushed.” I didn’t see it that way. I figured I must’ve missed the part about “formal debate.” It was still fun and although I was unprepared, I enjoyed it. That was the purpose.

Paradigm was planning on having a party room last year, but we didn’t.

I think the people who attend Paradigm are good people, and they will treat PZ with the same amount of courtesy and respect they treat anyone who is speaking. Not everyone on the speaker list shares the same views – and the symposium isn’t “ancient-alien-centric.”

Someone asked about the priest with the “fist” and cut off sleeves – that’s Father Jack Ashcraft. He’s a pretty unconventional Byzantene priest who speaks out against the Vatican. He is a critical thinker who also happens to be a priest. The graphic was one I created for his headline in Intrepid Mag, “The Bare Fisted Cleric.” All in good fun.

Scottyroberts:
If one is a priest, then they have failed at critical thinking.
As for everyone on the speaker list, if they are peddlers of woo, there is a problem. Do you know what woo is and why it is bad?

Chigau,
Oh, I understand you then. You are simply jumping to conclusion based on your personal opinion and bias. I thought you were applying some form of critical thinking. My mistake. Sorry. Your words makes sense now.

Tony,
I was just about to ask you if YOU knew what “woo” was. If you think “everyone” on the speaker list is a woo-meister, you didn’t do your homework. But, hey, that didn’t stop you from casting biased criticism. Congrats.

scottyroberts #81
If your buddy is a real catholic priest, then every day he transforms a wee wafer into the actual body of Christ and some wine into the actual blood of Christ.
It is a requirement of priesthood.
This pre-dates the Popes he chooses to pooh-pooh.
critical thinking?

Chigau,
Maybe not the critical thinking of an atheist, but certainly the critical thinking of a theist. Critical thinking isn’t limited to to those who don’t believe in a deity. Your list of criteria for critical thinking is pretty short.

Maybe you should talk to Ashcraft and do a little applied research. I don’t know if he is a transubstantiationalist or not. Ask him directly – unless you are satisfied simply going with what you think you know.

Chigau,
Are you saying that link to a pseudo dialog between me and over a dozen people who – as PZ put it – were there to be in “attack mode” is somehow a definition of “peer review” and a window into my thinking?

I certainly hope you don’t take yourself too seriously. ;)

If this link above is your example of “peer review,” then so is the television show “Ancient Aliens.” haha.

This thread, which has now already reached 90 posts, can be put to rest pretty easily.

I simply responded to PZ’s post and fun-poking by saying that I am looking forward to having him at Paradigm, and that he will be treated with respect and courtesy by both the organizers of the symposium and the attendees – even if they don’t agree with him or his way of thinking. And it has nothing to do with metaphysics. hahaha.

scottyroberts
I don’t believe you. I think you are lying.
-a catholic priest must believe in (and perform) transubstantiation, else he is NOT a catholic priest
-you were demonstrably WRONG on the definition of ‘peer review’ and never admitted it
-hahaha

Oh, fuck, the fool ancient alienist is back. Last time you were around, I was playing Uncharted Waters actively, and just as I return to that, you’re around again. Fun times.

Are you saying that link to a pseudo dialog between me and over a dozen people who – as PZ put it – were there to be in “attack mode” is somehow a definition of “peer review” and a window into my thinking?

Considering that you evaded, used misogynist slurs, whined about your inability to support a factual claim, bucked historical consensus for shits and giggles, and flip-flopped repeatedly, I’d say that it’s certainly a window into your thinking. But peer review feels like an inaccurate comparison. You’re not my peer; you’re a stupid, racist fuckwit who repeats stupid bullshit theories that denigrate the abilities of non-white people.

Chigau,
As I did before, I again reiterate that it is idiot statements like yours which give people like you – the supposed scientific community – bad PR. You wonder why people turn away from what is supposed to be scientific thought? Its because of people like you who dominate its social reach.

As for me, foul language-based name calling is like water off a duck’s back. I couldn’t give less of a fuck. I am pretty good with blue language, myself. But I don’t incorporate it in dialog and discourse. You should learn more about getting out from behind the veritable anonymity of your computer screen, where you can be as toxic and base as you’d like without repercussion. But, hey, whatever gives you courage.

Perhaps mama’s basement is not the best place to have honed your social skills.

From the website of Jack Ashcroft, Byzantine Catholic priest and “critical thinker”:

The goal of this website is to expose heretical teachings, warn the faithful of the poison of Modernism, providing a traditionalist viewpoint on politics, culture and society, and to teach the one, holy, ancient Orthodox and Catholic faith. Furthermore, this website is designed to offer valid information on spiritual warfare, deliverance, exorcism, and cults. Part of this mission requires Apologetics, the defense of the Christian faith. In addition we do our best to connect those with a sincere need to legitimate exorcists , diocesan officials, Christian investigators, and mental health professional swho understand the reality of the spiritual world

Rutee, You said: <blockquote cite="Considering that you evaded, used misogynist slurs, whined about your inability to support a factual claim, bucked historical consensus for shits and giggles, and flip-flopped repeatedly, I’d say that it’s certainly a window into your thinking. But peer review feels like an inaccurate comparison. You’re not my peer; you’re a stupid, racist fuckwit who repeats stupid bullshit theories that denigrate the abilities of non-white people."

1) I never evaded, I answered your direct questions. When you felt I was evading, it was when you posed stupid, inaccurate statements that were unfounded supposition, expecting me to respond.

2) I never whined about anything – as matter of fact, I held my own against the barrage of idiocy pretty well. I never whined about not being able to support a claim. I simply would turn it back on you and ask you to support your statement. All of this perception i that what you tend to do is ttempt to dismantle by attack. You were unsuccessful.

3) I never flip-flopped, but I did admit that I don’t know everything. What looked like flip-flopping was when you labeled and made misstatements about me, and I told you that you were incorrect, hence, turning your charge or claim on its ear.

4) I never called you my peers. Not once. haha. Chigau above was the one that compared that link to peer review. Not me.

Eurasian Magpie,
I’ve spent countless hours in discussion with Ashcraft and he is, indeed, a standout. Every article he sends me for Intrepid Magazine, he prefaces it with, “This one is sure to get me excommunicated.” haha.

Sastra in #64 must be psychic…that’s exactly what I expect to have happen, too. I also expect several of my extraocular muscles to get an extreme amount of exercise.

New Agers are very concerned about the appearance of unpleasant vibrations. If they’re getting angry, they feel like they’re doing something wrong and they change directions, or back off and go get some aromatherapy. The person most likely to get frustrated that weekend is me, because I’ll feel like I’m pushing against syrupy oatmeal the whole time. Whenever I bring up something I’ll disagree with, they’ll cave in and tell me that I might be right.

That’s one of their primary characteristics: extreme open-mindedness and no critical thinking at all.

And with that, I am off and out. I have a full weekend of writing to complete the new book on the archaeological/anthropological historical study of Moses and the Exodus with my co-author, Dr. John Ward. Deadline is pressing us like the sword of Damecles.

You’re getting a good taste of the expected behavior here. Note that Roberts is defending his buddy “Father” Jack, but not by telling you what he believes and supporting it with reason or evidence, but by telling you what he doesn’t support. Yet he’s a sedevacantist priest — that doesn’t just mean he vaguely defies the Vatican, it means he has an extremist, highly dogmatic view of what the church should do. But getting into the specifics of that would give you all something solid to grapple with, so he avoids bringing it up.

Denying that he’s New Age…also expected behavior.

I don’t actually expect to convert or even seriously discuss anything with the people at this conference — their brains simply don’t work that way. But oh, boy, will I be taking notes on them.

Ah, once again Scotty Roberts comes to huff and puff. I was going to go on at some length about his inability to see how he comes across here, words like: smug, evasive and dishonest featured prominently. But now I realise that there is no point.

You see, Scotty Roberts has only one goal here, and it’s not to convince us of his integrity. Nor is it to convince us that his theories are correct. He knows full well that his evidence won’t pass muster in this rational community. No, his purpose is much the same as when we argue with MRAs and creationists. He is speaking to the lurkers. Only in his case it’s the rubes who’ve paid, or will pay, for his woo-fest and his fantasy novels disguised as history.

He knows full well how he comes across to those who’ve not bought into the bullshit he’s peddling, and he doesn’t care, because he also knows that he’ll never see a dime of our money. His purpose is to score empty and vapid points with those who already believe. The goal is always to preserve his standing in that community, and to keep the money (ghost)train rolling.

The only thing he fears is one of his marks stumbling across this thread and seeing unopposed criticism. Can’t have that, they might start to question, they might start to wonder just why people are angry at charlatans like Scotty Roberts. The might start to see that he has a financial motive for keeping them from rational thought and sound evidence.

Can’t have that. Hence the tone trolling. Making sure his yet-to-be-fleeced sheep focus on how mean we’re being is a bog standard diversion tactic.

Scotty Roberts knows he’s being smug, evasive and dishonest, but that’s okay, those are the tools by which he earns his daily crust.

scotty, as others have said, transubstantiation is a central tenet of catholicism. I’m a baptized “catholic” myself, and for some time was hanging out with a specific fairly conservative congregation. I’m surrounded by catholics in close family and friends (not USians though), and most of them don’t even know what transubstantiation means or if they do, that it should be treated as literal.

So, in short, if you call yourself a catholic and don’t believe in transubstantiation, you’re a hypocrite. And you’re a special kind of hypocrite if you’re a priest.

Also, I presume from all this that you also believe that transubstantiation is ridiculous nonsense, since you’re so adamant to defend someone by saying they probably don’t believe in it?

Yet he’s a sedevacantist priest — that doesn’t just mean he vaguely defies the Vatican, it means he has an extremist, highly dogmatic view of what the church should do.

Specifically, it means that he believe the seat is empty, the Holy See is vacant. It means he believes all popes after Pius XII have not legally been popes and indeed haven’t been Catholic at all; they’re all charged with “the heresy of Modernism” (no joke) because they have accepted the Second Vatican Council. If I need to spell it out, the last few popes haven’t been fundamentalist enough for them! Here’s the Wikipedia article.

I don’t know if it’s a ‘European’ thing, but I tend to get suspicious of people who insist on flaunting their titles.

It’s a scientist thing. Scientists aren’t used to putting their titles on their publications.

1) I never evaded, I answered your direct questions. When you felt I was evading, it was when you posed stupid, inaccurate statements that were unfounded supposition, expecting me to respond.

You went 900 comments without answering a direct question regarding the discrepancy with your claim to be an agnostic and your claim in your book that you were a Christian. You never once supported a claim you made, despite repeated requests. The only solid statement you made was ‘I’m not a misogynist or a racist’, and that was obviously untrue.

2) I never whined about anything – as matter of fact, I held my own against the barrage of idiocy pretty well. I never whined about not being able to support a claim. I simply would turn it back on you and ask you to support your statement. All of this perception i that what you tend to do is ttempt to dismantle by attack. You were unsuccessful.

Dude, you never once asked for evidential support – and considering most of the claims against you were negative – e.g. “there is no evidence for an exodus event” – you wouldn’t have cause to even if you did. And you did indeed whine. I pointed out the consensus is that Arthur really didn’t exist, and call you stupid for saying ‘nobody could say otherwise’ when the consensus is the opposite, and you whine about how I think every dissenting opinion can’t possibly be decent scholarship.

The thread is RIGHT THERE. Stop being such a blatant liar.

3) I never flip-flopped, but I did admit that I don’t know everything. What looked like flip-flopping was when you labeled and made misstatements about me, and I told you that you were incorrect, hence, turning your charge or claim on its ear.

Like fun you didn’t. The most clear case of you backtracking was when someone quoted one of your stupid articles, in which you stated that the flat earthers spurred on the explorers of the age of sail – which could not be further from the case. We all roundly mocked you, and you tried to pretend that you always knew flat-earthers weren’t really a problem for 15-16th century explorers. That’s more of a flip-flop than my sandals.

Speaking of…

4) I never called you my peers. Not once. haha. Chigau above was the one that compared that link to peer review. Not me.

You do realize I can insult you by using someone else’s structure, right? Not just your own?

5) Your racist claim is simply ass plucking. It does’t work.

Two things.
1: You’re a human in a racist society. You can’t not be at least somewhat racist. It’s simply impossible, and all empirical evidence supports this. If you wanna make the claim you’re a unicorn, I’ll need extraordinary evidence.
2: But really, you’re providing a fora for Ancient Aliens assholes, so that ship has sailed. You are providing a forum, and cover, for people who’s entire modus operandi is that people who weren’t white couldn’t be competent engineers. So really, you’re racist as hell.

I like how you didn’t even deny misogynist. That’d be hard, after all the gendered bullshit you threw at me last time though, but then again, so is denying to be racist while supporting Ancient Alienists.

I never claimed I was “ambushed.” I didn’t see it that way. I figured I must’ve missed the part about “formal debate.” It was still fun and although I was unprepared, I enjoyed it. That was the purpose.

I didn’t say you claimed you were ambushed, hence paraphrase quotes. You alluded to it and breathed life into it with your words, though. That was the meaning behind, indeed the impression you gave, with your words here, where you imply dishonesty of the “friendly pair from SkepChicks[sic]”, a sudden, unexpected shift in format, and that you were outclassed. You are telling me you didn’t intend to give the impression that it was an ‘ambush’? Bullshit. Yet you can’t even stick with your lie long enough because you immediately walk it back to the point where you were likely mistaken about the format, missing a key feature of the nature discussion, rather than your initial story of dishonesty on the part of the panel hosts. You have demonstrated to me your integrity, clearly.

I had noticed the obelisk penetrating ‘even deeper’, but only now did I notice the image of Kathleen McGowen Coppens at the base of the obelisk. These people really need to rethink this sexist imagery.

Scottyroberts @84:
Nowhere did I say everyone on the speaker list is a peddler of who. I said:
“If everyone on the list is a peddler of woo, there is a problem”

Also, proper critical thinking entails following the evidence to its conclusion. It does not mean confirming ones biases. Hence the lack of critical thinking in a priest. To be fair he may employ it well in other areas, but in his chosen field-the priesthood-Mr Ashcraft has failed to think critically.
As for woo?
Pseudoscience.
Or:
” Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.

Here’s a dictionary definition of woo-woo:

adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.

When used by skeptics,woo-woo is a derogatory and dismissive term used to refer to beliefs one considers nonsense or to a person who holds such beliefs.

Sometimes woo-woo is used by skeptics as a synonym for pseudoscience,true-believer,or quackery. But mostly the term is used for its emotive content and is an emotive synonym for such terms as nonsense, irrational, nutter, nut,or crazy

I’ve heard “woo” defined as supernatural beliefs which aren’t clearly connected to religion/a specific religion. This then leaves out pseudoscience like perpetual motion machines or ancient astronauts. Some are bothered by that; others like to make the distinction.

Of course, when you examine the presumably supernatural-free pseudoscientific claims you usually start to see supernatural elements emerge anyway: people who are specially super-sensitive or ‘energy’ which responds to human needs or occult elements seeping in. A lot of woo-sters honestly can’t seem to see that just because some proposed phenomenon isn’t traditionally religious this doesn’t automatically make it scientific. There is no “well, that is the way I see science.”

So they’ve got a speaker who is a priest who thinks the Catholic Church just isn’t retrograde enough — and they’re sandwiching him between all the proponents of Sweetness and Light? That’s probably part of their overall plan to be “nonjudgmental” and embrace anyone who is against mainstream authority, atheism, and/or materialism. That’s the uniting factor. Well, that and bad arguments and evidence.

If you go to a Holistic Health Faire you’ll almost never see healers who advocate completely opposite healing strategies argue with each other — even if their booths are side-by-side. That’s because it doesn’t really matter if cancer is caused by liver flukes, cell phones, french fries, or ‘holding on to resentment.’ The only thing that matters is being a REBEL.

Maybe that’s why they want PZ. They’ll disagree with everything he says but hey he’s a REBEL … so it’s nod and smile time. Their paradigm is soooo edgy.

After all is said, here, I maintain my original posts… PZ will be welcomed and not harangued for what he has to say. Contrary to what you all may think, Paradigm is not a holistic faire, nor a metaphysicists’ workshop.

Its great seeing everyone’s dissertations on Catholicism. I would say that the easiest answers to your questions would be to ask Ashcraft directly. I am sure he he could answer these sorts of questions much better than I, as I am not a Catholic, never have been, nor do I study it.

I only pass you off to him, as he is much more knowledgable on the topic than I.

Rutee,
For the record, your claim that I am a misogynist is completely inaccurate. I am no misogynist. (missed responding to that one on my earlier post).

I use a single phrase which was twisted into you and others making the blanket charge that I am a misogynist. I think you should be as critical in all areas with everyone on this forum as you are of that single statement I made for comic effect. I explained it back then and also apologized if it was taken as a misogynistic statement. I felt now as i did then – way too sensitive for such critical thinkers.

As for the racist charge, you are also very mistaken. I have never, ever made claims that people of color needed whites to achieve anything. I think you tend to see what you want to see, and level charges on that basis.

Your loose usage of those words demonstrate a “witch hunting” mentality. Under your criteria for establishing empirical fact, I am sure that if I said something like, “My wife put me under her spell, and I fell in love with her,” would have you charging that I believed and was a proponent of the existence, use and efficacy of black magic.

Let me clarify something from my last post: You guys are, for the most part, far too overly politically sensitive and nit-picky to really be very good critical thinkers. You are no different than the religious fundamentalists.

Throwaway,
You implied – or paraphrased – that I said I was ambushed. I, however, did not say nor imply that I was.

If this makes my thoughts on that any clearer:
It was me answering queries and charges cast from more than a dozen people. Idid my best to keep up with them all. If i hadn’t, I would have been labeled as someone who was “scared off.” Conversely, when I tried to answer all questions and charges directly, I was told that I posted too much, and was criticized for that.

In a sense I felt it was like running a gauntlet that if you are still there and approachable and willing to dialog in the end, it was a good thing.

The only time I got “snarky” or as some of you said, “arrogant,” was with people who simply demeaned rather than attempted to engage in any real dialog. One person in particular kept telling me I had no credentials. I answered that I would be interesting in hearing that person’s credentials. They continued in dozens of posts to simply ignore that request. For me, that person’s comments and snarkiness became irrelevent.

I simply responded to PZ’s post and fun-poking by saying that I am looking forward to having him at Paradigm, and that he will be treated with respect and courtesy by both the organizers of the symposium and the attendees – even if they don’t agree with him or his way of thinking.

We’ll see.

—

[OT + meta]

You could be Scotty Roberts, but obviously it’s too much effort for too little gain for you.

and the same thing continues in this thread. I merely came in to say that PZ was welcomed and would be treated with respect.

In turn, I have had many different posts posing several questions about me, my speakers at Paradigm and picking apart any and everything. My responses are limited to those questions as best I can>

Hell, I was already criticized in this thread for simply missing ONE point that was charged. It s sometimes hard to keep up. If you don’t me to attempt to answer your charge or question, why ask it? Unless you are simply pontificating on a remnant of what you think are the complete facts. That is where you drift far afield from what you expect everyone else to do.

From what I can tell most of the presenters would have little problem using words like “spiritual, “metaphysics,” and “holistic.” I suspect this would even apply to your history and archaeology buffs. Ancient astronauts are usually associated with ancient wisdom regarding a supernatural connection to the cosmos.

I think you are mistaken when it comes to deciding what is “unconventional” and what is not. “Ancient mysteries, anomalous phenomenon, political conspiracies, and other “edgy” subject matter” is generally beloved and accepted by the conventional public, most of whom of course believe in God, miracles, and various forms of the paranormal.

The scientific community, however, thinks outside the box. Science is uncommon sense. It goes against the traditional grain of thinking — a tradition which I think is exemplified by the ‘daring’ Paradigm subject matter which only feeds into old habits of thought and confirms what people think they already know.

I could be wrong, of course. But I think you seriously underestimate the curiosity of the humanist and scientific community … and seriously overestimate how remarkable most of what you will be speaking about is. This looks to me like the same tired old stuff which has been pushed through most of human history, put in shiny bottles.

Yes, I’m pretty sure PZ will be treated with respect. PZ assumes he will be as well. But he would probably include hostile (but honest) questioning as a form of respect. Respect is not the same as forbearance, you know.

But I thought having someone as credentialed as PZ would be a good thing.

“Credentialed” in what way? His science degree? His scienceblog? His status as atheist and skeptic? Do you think his presence there will give credibility to the ideas in the symposium — or will it help to demonstrate how “edgy” you are, in comparison?

Or do you … do you think … he might be right — and you want to learn from him?

Sastra,
Credentialed in his science degree and teaching. Skepticism and atheism I don’t hold as any better a credential than being a theist, as that is simply a choice made to believe or disbelieve. Theologians, too, can be highly “credentialed,” but that does not mean their chosen philosophy is any better than another.

I am hoping PZ gives people something to think about. If people learn from him, even better.

Dr. John Ward is also speaking at Paradigm. He is an archaeologist and anthropologist working the quarries of Gebel el Silsila south of Luxor, Egypt with his associate, Dr. Maria Nilsson. He is also co-authoring a book with me on the Exodus and Moses.

John presents from an historical and anthropological position. And people at Paradigm loved him last year. Because he offered solid scholarship as opposed to woo – the same offering we put in the new book.

Ah, I see. I think PZ probably will give people something to think about. As for what (or whether) they learn, that’s probably up to the individual.

I have been to several skeptic and humanist conventions which had religious or paranormal advocates give talks. You will be happy to know that the audience was always respectful — but asked hard questions afterwards. This seemed to me to take the presenters back a bit. They are no doubt used to more accepting audiences. One gentleman — he had formed a ‘theory’ about how souls might survive death according to physics — laughed and said he would take care to never bring his theory up in front of so many physicists again! He seemed to think we would all sympathize with how he felt, since most of us were not physicists and my, but they did pick apart everything.

And people at Paradigm loved him last year. Because he offered solid scholarship as opposed to woo – the same offering we put in the new book.

Here’s the problem: I don’t think the people who attend (or set up) the Paradigm Symposium can tell the difference between “solid scholarship” and woo, pseudoscience, and/or just science/history which is just poorly done. This is not exactly a critical audience. Nor is it likely to be a scientifically literate one. The sort of Deep Thinkers who fancy learning about ‘ancient mysteries, anomalous phenomenon, political conspiracies, and other “edgy” subject matter’ are mostly interested in discovering and embracing something controversial and exciting. Anything that goes against the consensus of expert opinion! Just imagine if they’re all wrong! And these guys are right! And I was there, one of the few — on the ground floor!

I don’t doubt that the audience ate up — and will eat up — anything which LOOKS like solid scholarship. But only as long as it’s not so solid that it’s accepted by the mainstream. It has to be somewhat soft and semi-jelled in order for people to think they “choose” their world view and don’t have it forced on them by the weight of overwhelming evidence.

I don’t know Dr. Ward and I haven’t looked him up. But judging by some of the other stuff being presented I doubt very much whether his fans know how to properly evaluate proper scholarship in the proper field — and I don’t think the bar for being an “expert” is very high.

What sort of things does he write? Criticism of Catholic dogma? Or condemnation of the Church for being too soft?

Well, I checked the intepidmag site, and lo:

Benedict XVI/Ratzinger Resigns: Hidden Truths

In the next few weeks there will be a conclave to elect a new anti-pope for the Vatican II Revolution that now possesses the Vatican.

Hahahahahahaha!

I also asked:

What does he base his criticism on? Actual archaeology and anthropology, or conflict with Catholic dogma?

And lo:

Alien Abduction and Nephilim

Who is it that will “mingle” with the seed of men? This appears to be linked to the warning of Jesus recorded in Luke 17:26, which would in turn mean that we would have to look to Genesis 6 (which speaks of Nephilim) with a much more prophetic eye. This is where we find the answer to the question of who is “mingling” with the seed of men. Could it be that the warning concerns a return of the Nephilim to interfere in human affairs through a renewed hybrid program? This would mean in theological terms a direct demonic intervention in human history.

The seemingly demonic element behind the UFO and alien abduction scenario has been noted by such researchers as Dr. Jacques Vallee, Whitley Streiber, and John Keel, who states in UFO’s: Operation Trojan Horse:

“The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age old demonological phenomenon.”

Hahahahahaha!

He’s a loon!

Oh, and don’t you dare call him a New Ager!

Cult of the Black Sun

The following is an excerpt from my upcoming book “Black Sun Rising”, an expose of the connections between National Socialism, the New Age Movement and the current Progressive Movement.

For the record, your claim that I am a misogynist is completely inaccurate. I am no misogynist. (missed responding to that one on my earlier post).

The thread is right there – the repeated use of gendered insults against me is clearly visible to anyone who reads. Furthermore, any attempt to say you are NOW a unicorn is completely meaningless given your complete lack of acknowledgement of the problem with gendered insult. You are a misogynist, probably around averagely so.

I use a single phrase which was twisted into you and others making the blanket charge that I am a misogynist.

It’s not a ‘blanket charge’, as I’m not saying your little woo-mongers are all particularly misogynist for your use of gendered insults. It is a specific charge, clearly citing specific behaviors (Actually, your lame evasions like ‘let me go get my wife’ would probably also qualify, but again, only in a banal way).

As for the racist charge, you are also very mistaken. I have never, ever made claims that people of color needed whites to achieve anything. I think you tend to see what you want to see, and level charges on that basis.

Dude. This is the very cornerstone of ancient aliens. It only functions on the assumption that non-white people could not have managed these marvels. You see extant roman architecture, and you assume they were built by people. You see extant mayan architecture, and that is evidence of alien visitations. Given that the only real exception in the entire series run of Ancient Aliens was Stonehenge, this is a pattern very well established and maintained. Y’all think white people can build shit, and that non-white people can’t. I don’t care what lame dodge you think works – it can’t get around this central point. Until and unless the colloseum (in addition to numerous other works I can think of) have this same bullshit levelled at them, ya got nothing to wriggle out of this with. What you choose to believe about my motives and arguments has about as much to do with my motives and arguments as what you choose to believe about nephilim has to do with the real world at large.

No, they demonstrate an understanding of what those words mean in sociology – you know, an actual science. They refer to reinforcing structures that are harmful to classes of people – in this case, non-white people or women.

Rutee,
Why don’t you go root out my “repeated use of gendered insults against you,” and repost them here. Who wants to root through 1900 comments to look for your straw man?

I maintain that I made one statement that was meant to be lighthearted, as it has been used on me in the past for comic effect by others, and I have used it on others as a comic deference to former times when insults like that were real and actual (and if you don’t understand the comic usage of such archaic terms and phraseology, than you are quite detached from comic humor and its use).

My single statement that you hold up as the shining example of my misogyny was when I said to you, “…so don’t worry your purdy, little head.” And you lead an assault on that phrase and me that completely obfuscated anything else substantive I may have said. And in all fairness, at the time I used that phrase with you, I didn’t even know you were a “chick.” (There. Now, you have another deliberate example of my gross misogyny, “SkepChicks” notwithstanding.)

If you’d like some good information on my misogynistic ways and tendencies, just look at my entire career, and maybe even ask my mother, my wife, and my entreprenureal twin daughters. I am sure they will give you an earful about my womanizing, female-hatin’ lifestyle. But, of course, that would mean you would actually have to take the time to do your homework – which I am sure is something you’d rather NOT do, as it might burst your comfortable, little bubble. Which once again leads me to maintain that “you people” (that’s my homage to racism) are no different than “those people.” The objects of your particular beliefs and stances and convictions may be on opposite ends of the spectrum, but you are all, scientists, theists, ancient alienists, etc, etc, etc, made of the same human cloth, and you all – WE all – do the same sorts of stupid shit when it comes to upholding our little corner of the universe.

You are a crass, unmitigated practitioner of “spew before you know,” and frothing at the mouth before having anything other than presuppositions based on loosely concocted evidence that looks like it might have some merit by your way of thinking. But, like the ancient alienists who hold to the same manner of practice, you don’t have any real facts firmly in hand, so you launch speculative diatribes based on a single thing that looks like it might be a fact substantiating your notion.

And if I were a REAL misogynist, I might tell you that perhaps your talents would be better applied to the kitchen and the bedroom, rather than adult interchange of ideas that you could not possibly grasp, being the “fairer sex.” But even I won’t go THAT far with my demeaning, meant-to-be-cutting comic humor of a person who I find to be lacking in credibility and void of substantive research and homework to base their case. It would simply go over your stunted ability to discourse.

Hey, look! I am learning how to be utterly demeaning from you guys – well most of you, because some of you are actually pretty decent people. At least give me kudos for being like you – utilizing a somewhat pseudo-academic approach to laying on thick swaths of the sort of insult you wouldn’t have to balls to say to someone’s face because there is no keyboard or screen to hide behind.

And you all wonder if I and the attendees at the Paradigm Symposium would be polite to PZ…? “Polite” isn’t in your lexicon, why the hell do you care how he will be treated? If I said he’d be treated as fairly and politely as this board treats people, would you be happy with that? Sheesh. You guys can’t see the forest through the trees.

REGARDING RACISM:
Rutee, as with most people who would rather distract from the substance of what was really being talked about, you have, AGAIN, successfully found a way to waste time and space on your absolutely vapid charge.

My entire life and reputation over the last 35 years is proof positive that your charge of racism against me is as inane as any other stupid, ridiculous charge you have made – and again, a complete distractive tactic that is nothing more than waste of good brain matter and forum space.

The racism charge against ancient alienists is the red herring-fed straw man you have erected that gives you some ass-plucking impetus to dance a jig of some sort. I have never heard an AA theorist push any sort of notion that “brown skinned peoples needed extra help” because of the color of their skin. As a matter of fact, they extend their theories of ancient alien intercession to pre-Celts and caucasian pre-european races – oh wait, that may be the brown-skinned ancient alienists who have applied reverse racism to that theory… I need to double check.

You make me shake my head. You once again prove to me that simply because you can type intelligently, doesn’t mean your opinions are worth a pile of day-old sidewalk turd.

Eurasian,
Before I take off for the day, I would absolutely agree with you that criticism is a far cry from critical thinking.

As for Ashcraft, my opinion is that he is a reasoned man who also has theological dogma. The two are not innate enemies.

I wasn’t avoiding anything other than not misrepresenting Ashcraft in my opinion of how he handles what he puts forward. The proof is NOT in my opinion, but rather in understanding what any individual teaches and promulgates.

And, by the way, the amazing woman who is my mother, who raised me and my two siblings all on her own without the help of my absentee father, was the one who taught me all my “misogynistic” tendencies.

My deferring to Jack Ashcraft as the one who is better qualified to answer questions about his beliefs is not “laziness,” it’s responsible.

Silly Scotty.

I did not ask about his beliefs, per se, which you would see if you weren’t too lazy to read what I wrote carefully.

I asked specifically about what he wrote. Which, as his purported editor, you should presumably be in a position to know, because you read that text of what he submits, if you were actually doing that.

Do you actually read what your contributors submit to you, or are you too lazy to do that?

Your charge of “laziness” is void of substance.

Some flaw in your character caused you to either not actually read what I wrote, or to completely misread it as a request for Ashcraft’s beliefs. Would you prefer that that flaw be called “laziness” or “sloppiness”?

I find myself wondering if Scotty’s secret plan is to get PZ and Ashcraft together and talk about Catholicism. “Let’s you and him fight”.

At least now it’s been settled that Ashcraft is not a “critical thinker”, but is rather a religious fanatic who is paranoid in a way completely different from the way that Ancient Alien fans are paranoid. That is, assuming that his writings reflect his beliefs. Maybe he’s just faking being a religious fanatic?

Btw, I took time to google every speaker mentioned. Because, what else is a magpie to do on a lovely spring Sunday! I learned so many new things about the world of woo. Did you know that black-eyed children are a thing??

Scottyroberts:
You only get to keep that cross another few hours. Enjoy playing martyr while you can.
‘Woe is me’ people are being mean and tossing invectives at me. Poor, poor scottyroberts…accused of misogyny, and unable to defend it other than ‘no, I am not’ and ‘my mother raised me’, neither of which refutes the accusation (which was levelled in the thread you already mentioned, and discussed for a while, IIRC). You are also incapable of understanding why the charges of ‘racist’ are quite true despite it being explained to you (hint, not all racism manifests as white men in silly white hats and robes lynching black people; your assertion of the existence of ancient aliens–how long before he denies that he believes in AAs?–is the proof necessary to support that claim).
One day when you dig your head out of the woofest you know and love, perhaps you will comprehend what people have been saying to you.
Til then, if you are going to flounce, try to stick the landing.

Oh yeah, Tony, I think I forgot to say it in plain English. Here, let me do it now while I have my best whiney voice in play:

“Oh, sad, sad, sad day. I got verbally picked on by a bunch of people who throw silly charges at me!! Woe is me! How will I ever continue on?? How can those five or so people be so mean, anyway??? I am so undone.”

There. Did that help you feel better?

If you think that your inane charges can leave me feeling bereft and hollow, picked-on and spanked, you certainly don’t know me very well. What remains evident is that it is sometimes very difficult to talk with a dozen or more people all at once, and at the same time attempt to maintain cogency and direct answers when one thing consistently melts into another. I think your spineless ass would have caved and run long ago were the tables turned. You are bolstered by the crowd. Bravo.

On the Misogyny and Racist claims you make – or support – why don’t you simply PROVE IT. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evince. Let’s see your evidence, Tony… anyone. Prove to to the world that I am a misogynist and a racist. So far your evidence is pretty lacking, but like the Ancient Alienists and theists and new ager metaphysicists you decry as repugnant, you are sure comfortable utilizing their methodology.

…or are you saying that the charge itself, because its made by you, is more important than researching the facts?

Further on the Racist charge, I know PRECISELY what is at the core of that purported claim, and its bullshit that has been incorporated for many years by one side of an argument in order to discredit the other. Its a theory, not a substantiated claim. So, if you think I am racist, put up or shut up.

You folks are throwing out the charges, so the onus is on you to prove your case. Good luck.

And, by the way, Tony, I said that the general brand of criticism here is more aptly defined as “invective.” If you doubt me, go look up the word and compare that definition to your angst-ridden posts.

I never said I was infected by the brand of vituperation displayed by many members of this forum. I merely insist that is what many of you engage in, as opposed to critical thinking or criticism. And many of you do it because you are behind the veritable safety of anonymity, that great bolsterer of balls.

Simply take these posts and let an uninterested, objective third party evaluate them. I’d be interested to see what a psychologist or some other credentialed evaluator of human behavior might have to say. Wouldn’t you…?

“Black eyed children” are a phenomena – kinda like Bigfoot. David wrote about the phenomena, not about his intrinsic belief in them. There’s a difference.

Are you implying that David Weatherby writes on this topic from the objective stance of a skeptic? He does not promote belief, but neither does he discourage it: he’s just reporting the “facts” … and lets the reader make up their own mind about “these strange beings?”

No, I call shennanigans on this one. I’ve not read this book (so yes, I could be wrong), but I think I’ve seen many books like it. While there may be phrases liberally thrown about which express some skepticism here and there — and can thus be taken out of context to shut critics up (“hey, I’m just sayin’ is all”) — it’s a pretty safe bet to assume that the writer is going to be very sympathetic indeed to the probable reality of actual Black-eyed Children. It’s not just objective lists of what some people thought was true. Everything will be connected in a gosh-gee-willikers breathlessness that mirrors the promotional material.

Yes, there is a difference between writing ABOUT a phenomena and ENDORSING it, sure. But do you really think an audience which is familiar with genuine skeptical investigation is going to blur this distinction?

your assertion of the existence of ancient aliens–how long before he denies that he believes in AAs?–is the proof necessary to support that claim).

His providing a forum for them to speak their mind, without challenging them himself, is sufficient, really.

Onto the main course of jackass.

My single statement that you hold up as the shining example of my misogyny was when I said to you, “…so don’t worry your purdy, little head.” And you lead an assault on that phrase and me that completely obfuscated anything else substantive I may have said.

That’d require you to say something of substance – for instance, supporting your claim that there was an “exodus event”, or providing evidence of the nephilim. Instead, you whined, you bragged, you evaded, and you dissembled, but you did not say one thing of substance.

And in all fairness, at the time I used that phrase with you, I didn’t even know you were a “chick.” (There. Now, you have another deliberate example of my gross misogyny, “SkepChicks” notwithstanding.)

Even if I were mistaken initially, all this moaning and crying about how it wasn’t no thing, and how you don’t need to do anything to fix it, apologize, or even acknowledging that there would have been a problem would be bad. And I frankly don’t believe you at all.

If you’d like some good information on my misogynistic ways and tendencies, just look at my entire career, and maybe even ask my mother, my wife, and my entreprenureal twin daughters. I am sure they will give you an earful about my womanizing, female-hatin’ lifestyle.

‘I have family’ still does not mean you are not misogynist.

My entire life and reputation over the last 35 years is proof positive that your charge of racism against me is as inane as any other stupid, ridiculous charge you have made – and again, a complete distractive tactic that is nothing more than waste of good brain matter and forum space.

Was that 35 years spent tirelessly working to deny ancient aliens bullshit, to not provide fora for their asshattery? Oh wait, even if it were, you’d still be letting them go and repeating their shit NOW. Christ, you are a jackass.

The racism charge against ancient alienists is the red herring-fed straw man you have erected that gives you some ass-plucking impetus to dance a jig of some sort. I have never heard an AA theorist push any sort of notion that “brown skinned peoples needed extra help” because of the color of their skin. As a matter of fact, they extend their theories of ancient alien intercession to pre-Celts and caucasian pre-european races – oh wait, that may be the brown-skinned ancient alienists who have applied reverse racism to that theory… I need to double check.

Reverse racism doesn’t exist, so another ding on the ‘banal racist bullshit’ checklist. And again, I’ll give it to ya straight: Roman architecture or bust. Managing to occasionally say SOMETHING white people did was ancient aliens (Stonehenge is the only one I’ve heard about, and I’ve looked. Atlantis as well, except Atlantis isn’t real so not really), when every awesome piece of architecture before 0 CE by non-white peoples is allegedly alien tech, is in fact pushing that theory. Christ, some of us are capable of reading subtext.

It was done, and didn’t require extraordinary evidence, as it isn’t an extraordinary claim. You claiming it is an extraordinary claim, is an extraordinary claim, and you must present your evidence to show that it is an extraordinary claim, and not just an ordinary claim. YOUR WORD ISN’T AND NEVER WILL BE EVIDENCE. Scotty, why don’t you just shut the fuck up. You don’t understand skepticism, where the null hypothesis is that everything you say is nothing but lies and bullshit. And you show nothing to convince a skeptic otherwise. What an abject, verbose and irrantional loser you are.

I merely insist that is what many of you engage in, as opposed to critical thinking or criticism.

Scotty, until you back up each and every claim you make with scientific evidence, we are showing critical thinking. You are nothing but a liar and bullshitter, and you say nothing to criticize, as it is too vague to be a real statement. “This is what I believe, and this *link to evidence* backs up this opinion” is definite enough that it requires a non-general answer to your inane claims.

I would call “Reptilians” and “Nephilim” nothing close to phenomena. I would call them “mythology.”

How would you distinguish between them?

I suspect that “phenomena” involve multiple self-reported personal experiences (where it’s not unlikely that later reports are strongly influenced by earlier reports), while “mythology” involves idiosyncratic interpretation of reality not based on any personal experience.

Rutee,
I think you should probably stop patting yourself on the back so vigorously.

His providing a forum for them to speak their mind, without challenging them himself, is sufficient, really. Onto the main course of jackass.

I think you are uneducated about the forum I present and whether or not I challenge them – and challenging them from my point-of-view would be much different than calling them a jackass in an open forum, it would be to sit and engage them in conversation and dialog. No matter, that sort of thing is lost on your type, anyway.

That’d require you to say something of substance – for instance, supporting your claim that there was an “exodus event”, or providing evidence of the nephilim. Instead, you whined, you bragged, you evaded, and you dissembled, but you did not say one thing of substance.

I find it interesting how easily you morph from one criticism to the next. By the tone of everything else you say, I am pretty sure your definition of “substance” is faulted, as well.

Even if I were mistaken initially, all this moaning and crying about how it wasn’t no thing, and how you don’t need to do anything to fix it, apologize, or even acknowledging that there would have been a problem would be bad. And I frankly don’t believe you at all.

I don’t recall moaning or crying about anything. This again reveals your innate bias. And I did apologize after explaining why I used that particular phrase. If that is anything less than you do in a scoial faux pas, I’d be surprised. But I have to keep reminding myself that you folks think you are better than anyone who doesn’t think like you, and, sadly, THAT is the true subtext of these threads.

‘I have family’ still does not mean you are not misogynist.

Too bad that those are the words you put into my mouth, when they aren’t at all close to what I said. Again, you demonstrate that you are no better in your dissemination of “fact” then those whom you attempt to decry. Because that isn’t what I said, at all, is it? You can’t even get THAT part accurate, and that was just earlier today. You even quoted what I actually said:

“If you’d like some good information on my misogynistic ways and tendencies, just look at my entire career, and maybe even ask my mother, my wife, and my entreprenureal twin daughters. I am sure they will give you an earful about my womanizing, female-hatin’ lifestyle.”

Nice try.

Was that 35 years spent tirelessly working to deny ancient aliens bullshit, to not provide fora for their asshattery? Oh wait, even if it were, you’d still be letting them go and repeating their shit NOW. Christ, you are a jackass.

No. It was spent in advertising as an art director, illustrator, designer, photographer, writer and creative director.

I have very little power over what an ancient alienist thinks or does, so your charge that I’d be “letting them go and repeat their shit” is a fairly vapid one.

However, I did get into an argument with a radio show host (from another show) who called into the show I was on whioch I was being interviewed, to ridicule me for claiming that Reptilian aliens were “pure mythology.” His argument was that the internet is full of “thousands of photos of “Reptilians” shape shifting, from former President Geroge Bush, Sr. to Queen Elizabeth. I told him that as a PhotoShop guru since 1989, I could see a digitally manipulated photo from a mile away, and that to date, I have not seen any internet photo of “reptilian eyes,” nor of supposed “Nephilim giants” that was authentic. And I’ve probably seen all of ’em.

Needless to say, he was apoplectic as you, but from the opposite side of the spectrum.

Homework before ridicule. And you call ME a “jackass?”

Reverse racism doesn’t exist, so another ding on the ‘banal racist bullshit’ checklist.

Are you REALLY that out-of-touch with humor? Seriously…? I think you need to stop being pedantic.

Roman architecture or bust. Managing to occasionally say SOMETHING white people did was ancient aliens (Stonehenge is the only one I’ve heard about, and I’ve looked. Atlantis as well, except Atlantis isn’t real so not really), when every awesome piece of architecture before 0 CE by non-white peoples is allegedly alien tech, is in fact pushing that theory. Christ, some of us are capable of reading subtext.

In all fairness, I don’t believe that ancient alienists believe that “every piece of architecture, pre-BCE” is extraterrestrial technology. I think there is a vast majority of it they say was influenced by spiritual experience or ET encounter. Much the way many ancient temples were built to demonstrate a state of worship of the gods, or a statue or other ancient sculpture was created to represent some image of the gods, much like the temples at ‘Ain Dara in Syria display images of mythical animals.

So, first, when you say that “all architecture PR-BCE” is attributed to aliens by ancient alienists, you are sorely mistaken and don’t very well know the topic you criticize.

Secondly, I am not an advocate to ancient alien theory – or notion. But I admittedly do find it intriguing. Blame that on my Star Trek days as a little kid.

But neither do I believe our current Science has a handle on everything that exists in this universe. I have always said that I find the notion “intriguing,” and “wouldn’t it be cool” if we could find some supporting evidence and facts. But that all that exists are scraps, bits and pieces that seem to ancient alien theorists as if they might hold some paleo-ET connection, but in all reality there is simple no empirical proof.

Jesus. Perhaps you are better at reading subtext than plain ol’ English.

One more thing, Rutee, you threw out some criticism of my mention of writing about an “Exodus Event.” You said:

That’d require you to say something of substance – for instance, supporting your claim that there was an “exodus event”…

Have you studied this topic, Rutee, or do you simply parrot a position? I’ve just written an entire book about it, referencing many scholarly works on the topic, with quite an extensive bibliography. (And before this one is given a chance to even make the light of day from your lips, they aren’t all “religious scholars,” which, I know, is a contradiction of terms to your way of thinking).

While there are several theories on the Exodus, it is my position that it took place during the mid-1400s BCE, during the eighteenth dynasty. And I believe that while there are few pharaohs who made detailed record of what they considered to be their monarchical failures, there is evidence of an “exodus event.”

In light of the fact that I am not going to start cutting and pasting portions of a pre-published book here in this forum, suffice it to say that the book delves into the identity of the Hebrews as a completely assimilated/Egyptianized people and their “slave” status, the identity of the Moses figure, the identity of the pharaohs who connected to these events, the location of what the Book of Exodus calls “Mt. Sinai,” and much more.

And guess what? We don’t have to make up any shit. Its all there in the historical records, if you do your research.

Anteprepro,
In obvious-yet-veiled criticism of my earlier statements saying I had to step away, you said:

The days just keep getting shorter and shorter. They just don’t make ‘em like they used to.

Well, when I wrote that this morning, I was supposed to leave shortly for the Veterans Hospital for the third day in a row to sit with my brother, David, who was dying from complications with pancreatic cancer.

In all accuracy, David is not my flesh-and-blood, but he has been an intimate part of this family for many years. Me, my wife and daughters, as well as my little ones went down to sit with David for the last few days. I promised him I’d be back this morning, but the call came that he had already died before I made the hour+ trip into the city.

That phone call came tucked in-between my posts of this morning, stating that I needed to go for the day. I didn’t think I owed anyone an explanation as to why my plans changed, but in accordance with most of what this group does, you have already formulated your conclusions and ran with it.

Of course, as usual, it required no real research for you to jump and comment with something critical – even if it was more mild than some of the other bullshit posted here.

No there isn’t until you provide the conclusive physical evidence for one. Otherwise, all you have is the desire/wish/delusion that it occurred, which *floosh* can and is dismissed as unevidenced fuckwittery.

Dr. Ward explained it and I even tried it. We drew the “blueprint” of a building on the dirt road outside his house. We mapped out columns, doors, windows and walls. The rods worked to find all of those structures – which were completely imaginary. It was a little uncanny, as I tried it myself – the only time I had ever held dowsing rods – and it worked to detail the invisible, nonexistent structure we created in the dirt just minutes earlier.

John explained it something governed by the mind and physical energy of objects – nothing spooky or metaphysical. I don’t remember if it was magnetic energy or how he described it.

I don’t know much about it, other than that it worked in my hands on the imaginary structure as well as underground, unexcavated walls and water channels at Medinat Habu, when we were there.

No there isn’t until you provide the conclusive physical evidence for one. Otherwise, all you have is the desire/wish/delusion that it occurred, which *floosh* can and is dismissed as unevidenced fuckwittery.

You must not read much.

I think you think your crass, dullard dipshittiness is your really cool way of addressing me or people you deem beneath you. It really only serves to reveal your limited social range and your inability to discourse on an intelligent level.

Months ago, you told me that you were credentialed in the sciences. I asked in what branch. You ignored my question. After asking you at least a dozen times a few months back – generally directly after one of your expletive-laced, ridiculous rants about what a “fuckwit” I was – you still have never answered my one, single, simple question of you: “In what branch of the sciences do you claim to be credentialed?”

So why should you expect anything from me in response to your silliness?

I second Nerd’s question to scottyroberts:
Where is your evidence that the Exodus happened? Given the extraordinary nature of this claim (as many with a critical eye have long realized, the Exodus mentioned in the bible could not have occured as that mythology book claims; perhaps there is another exodus that scottyroberts is talking about…?)
Note, that said evidence must pass sufficient muster to be accepted. Just asserting that you believe it occured is no more proof than saying that Ancient Aliens existed.

The testimonials of dowsers and those who observe them provide the main evidence for dowsing. The evidence is simple: dowsers find what they are dowsing for and they do this many times. What more proof of dowsing is needed? The fact that this pattern of dowsing and finding something occurs repeatedly leads many dowsers and their advocates to make the causal connection between dowsing and finding water, oil, minerals, golf balls, etc. This type of fallacious reasoning is known as post hoc reasoning and is a very common basis for belief in paranormal powers. It is essentially unscientific and invalid. Scientific thinking includes being constantly vigilant against self-deception and being careful not to rely upon insight or intuition in place of rigorous and precise empirical testing of theoretical and causal claims. Every controlled study of dowsers has shown that dowsers do no better than chance in finding what they are looking for

Tony,
You are correct. The Exodus did not happen as written in the biblical Book of Exodus. Not precisely, anyway. The book had been edited and re-written in the third century BCE to accomplish two things: 1) bolster the faithful Jews; 2) to reestablish a national identity for Israel.

And, of course, I would never write a book on an historical topic with mere “desires, delusions and/or wishes.”

We are just finishing all the tweaks and the book goes to our publisher on the 30th. So, I cannot reveal too much content right now. Suffice it to say that this ain’t your Cecil B. DeMilles’ Moses, nor is it a Sunday School pageant. And if I start going into even scant details right now, it would make you want to ask more and more questions. And I just can’t get into that right now.

One tidbit I can tell you about is Serabit el Khadim in the Sinai. Dr. Ward and I were guests of the local Shiek Barakat in the Sinai, where he put us up in one of his Bedhouin tents on the Sinai desert floor, his two older sons sleeping in the sand, wrapped in heavy camel hair blankets, watching over us later that night.

The sheik came out with his children all carrying silver trays filled with food, and they built us a fire, fed us and we spent the evening talking over historical data, hieroglyphs and stele we would see at the top of the mountain of Serabit el Khadim the next day.

With us was a man who is referred to as a “Guardian” by the Egyptian government. He is the official who is in charge of all antiquities and archaeology in the Sinai for the Egyptian government, but we cannot reveal his name until the release of the book. That was we were asked to agree to.

That night, at the fire in the tent, the Guardian asked about my theory of exodus. After spreading out my theory and the pharaohs and royal personages attached, he leaned over to me and said, “I have a surprize for you at the top of the mountain, tomorrow. A stele with two of your pharaohs as co-regents inscribed.” And there was much more to this than you can imagine.

The next morning, he led us up the ancient paths on the slopes of Serabit el Khadim, and the 4000-year-old Temple of Hathor, which lay in ruins at the top.

Hathor is the cow (calf) goddess of Egypt, and her temple was active during the chronology that houses the exodus from Egypt.

* * *

One of my favorite quotes:Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
– John Adams

I think you are uneducated about the forum I present and whether or not I challenge them – and challenging them from my point-of-view would be much different than calling them a jackass in an open forum, it would be to sit and engage them in conversation and dialog. No matter, that sort of thing is lost on your type, anyway.

Yes, people who are angry about racism are not typicallly keen on ‘dialog’ with racists. I do not grant cranks legitimacy, particularly not racist cranks. I will not pretend unevidenced, racist bullshit is equivalent to facts.

Have you studied this topic, Rutee, or do you simply parrot a position? I’ve just written an entire book about it, referencing many scholarly works on the topic, with quite an extensive bibliography.

I’ve studied it. I’ve never heard of any egyptian records referencing something remotely similar. I don’t care what crackpots you quoted, or what legitimate scholars you misquoted. Primary sources are king when they exist and we have them; they exist, and we have them. You don’t have any that support your claims. And if you think I’m buying your book, you’re even stupider than I thought.

I find it interesting how easily you morph from one criticism to the next. By the tone of everything else you say, I am pretty sure your definition of “substance” is faulted, as well.

You complained that I was distracting from your ‘substance’. By all means, present some substance. All you’ve done, again, is puffed out your chest. And it’s pretty funny that you’d highlight tone to look at substance – tone has less than nothing to do with substance.

I don’t recall moaning or crying about anything. This again reveals your innate bias. And I did apologize after explaining why I used that particular phrase. If that is anything less than you do in a scoial faux pas, I’d be surprised. But I have to keep reminding myself that you folks think you are better than anyone who doesn’t think like you, and, sadly, THAT is the true subtext of these threads.

All this frippery about how you CAN’T POSSIBLY BE A RACIST AND H OW DARE YOU is just a thing you’re going to pretend you’ve never done, huh? You know how people who are less racist and sexist respond to being told they’re reinforcing sexist or racist bullshit, and having it explained to them, and having that explanation be valid? They don’t keep insisting that everything they could possibly do is fine. If you were honestly just saying something stupid that was a gendered insult in spite of your intentions, you would retract it, and say you’ll not say it again. None of that is what you did. You have insisted YOU DID NOTHING.

And to now say you ‘apologized’? No, you didn’t. I just checked the thread again – at no point then did you do this, and you’re certainly not doing it now. I know you’re fuckin’ used to it, because it’s the only way your pet theories work, but stop inventing history.

Too bad that those are the words you put into my mouth, when they aren’t at all close to what I said. Again, you demonstrate that you are no better in your dissemination of “fact” then those whom you attempt to decry. Because that isn’t what I said, at all, is it? You can’t even get THAT part accurate, and that was just earlier today. You even quoted what I actually said:

‘I have female family members’ is essentially the tired saw you used, dude – using more words doesn’t change the well-worn dodge. The fact that you’re married and have daughters has less than nothing to do with your sexism, and is no proof against it. To now say it isn’t what you meant is kinda funny, in a sad way, but not helping you.

No. It was spent in advertising as an art director, illustrator, designer, photographer, writer and creative director.

I have very little power over what an ancient alienist thinks or does, so your charge that I’d be “letting them go and repeat their shit” is a fairly vapid one.

Don’t pretend with this third person bullshit. Your rag mag is kinda easy for the rest of us to see. And I only contended you allow them to spew their drivel in the name of ‘fairness’. Funny how ‘fairness’ seems to mean non-white people get to deal with stupid bullshit while white people coo and call them brave rebels for questioning the establishment right now.

So, first, when you say that “all architecture PR-BCE” is attributed to aliens by ancient alienists, you are sorely mistaken and don’t very well know the topic you criticize.

Ah, I see. You seem to think “” refers to paraphrase quotes, and ” are exact quotes. That’s the only way you can consistently seem to confuse the two whenever anyone else speaks. You see, I didn’t say all Pre-BC architecture was. I said, and I quote

when every awesome piece of architecture before 0 CE

or, to put it in words that aren’t also slang, ‘awe-inspiring’. And you know how you would actually try to perhaps counter this? Show the numerous structures that white people created that just HAD to have been alien technology. Instead, you dissemble. Because that’s all you can do.

But neither do I believe our current Science has a handle on everything that exists in this universe. I have always said that I find the notion “intriguing,” and “wouldn’t it be cool” if we could find some supporting evidence and facts. But that all that exists are scraps, bits and pieces that seem to ancient alien theorists as if they might hold some paleo-ET connection, but in all reality there is simple no empirical proof.

Oh, wouldn’t it be cool if every impressive structure by non-white people prior to the common era was made by aliens? Because you know, that’s totally more believable than these people managing shit white people didn’t.

And those scraps, bits, and pieces tell more than you realize. It’s certainly not as good as finding a manual and replicating a method, but we found the quarries and traced the trail of the stones in numerous pyramids. People did the hard work to actually analyze what we had. To then pretend “ALIENS DID IT” is equivalent, without any evidence of those aliens (or nephilim, or whatever other quackery you prefer) even existing? It’s fucking rich, and you should fucking be ashamed of yourself

About 10 books a year, a dozen magazines, and two daily newspapers. I read. I also don’t read mythology and pretend it is meaningful.

t really only serves to reveal your limited social range and your inability to discourse on an intelligent level.

Project much Snotty? I still don’t any evidence for any claim you make. YOUR WORD ISN’T AND NEVER WILL BE EVIDENCE. Welcome to science.

“In what branch of the sciences do you claim to be credentialed?”

Since my field of specialty doesn’t matter in my opinion, I will state I am a professional scientist working 35+ years with a terminal degree in my field. You prove the relevance of any normal scientific field to general knowledge on how science is done, which is what I comment on. Use references, as YOUR WORD IS *FLOOSH* DISMISSED AS BULLSHIT. PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

And Tony, the Exodus ain’t all that extraordinary. We just think so, due to its presence in a book of faith that pads the story. Honing down the elements of the recorded story and aligning them with Egyptian chronologies of the Kings – which are all over the board – and the historical record, such as it is, is challenging, but rewarding in the outcome – and quite revealing in ways you never knew existed.

Actually, a mass, united emigration by land across inhabited territory, ending in dispossessed, starving people carving an empire out of nowhere is pretty extraordinary. It doesn’t actually get less extraordinary by contending the Jews were integrated people – integrated people have power and even less incentive to go try to create a new home out of whole cloth rather than remaining in their current society. That’s not to say such emigrations never occur, but to say they captured nearly every single member of an allegedly large demographic? It’s poppycock.

…you think the Temple of Hathor hasn’t been gone over in detail over the last two centuries? You must really think we’re as stupid as the rubes who believe your bullshit.

Rutee,
So what? So has the Pyramid of Cheops, and they thought they knew everything there was to know about it. The Academic Community almost completely dismissed Khufu as the builder. Until recent papyri.

There, frankly, isn’t much about Egypt that hasn’t been known, at least in some form, for nearly two centuries, Rutee. Serabit el Khadim and the Temple of Hathor included.

Your newsflash is, quite frankly, yesterday’s bird cage liner. And that is especially humorous in that you only released your glaringly obvious comment with clear intent to inflict some sort of casualty or diminution of me, my research and/or both. You might think I don’t know what I’m doing, and that’s just fine if you makes you happy. But your conspiratorial shallowness is deliberate. And that paints you as rather noxious and vulgar.

So, you expressing to me that Serabit el Khadim has been known and examined for 200 years was to accomplish… what, precisely? Another post for you to express your dislike of me? Or just another pissing on the fire hydrant session?

Actually, a mass, united emigration by land across inhabited territory, ending in dispossessed, starving people carving an empire out of nowhere is pretty extraordinary. It doesn’t actually get less extraordinary by contending the Jews were integrated people – integrated people have power and even less incentive to go try to create a new home out of whole cloth rather than remaining in their current society. That’s not to say such emigrations never occur, but to say they captured nearly every single member of an allegedly large demographic? It’s poppycock.

You are certainly welcome to come to your own conclusions based on your research.

You really need to mature Snotty. Stop acting immature and thinking being vague is anything other than a childish game. Learn precision, accuracy, and how to reference your thoughts. Like us mature and knowledgeable folks do.
For example:

d Tony, the Exodus ain’t all that extraordinary.

You need to cite a reference, as your WORD is *FLOOSH* dismissed per Christopher Hitchens. “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. We don’t need to refute you, you must show you are right….As any real scientist knows.

And Rutee, might I add, “Bingo.” You have hit some nails on the head, but you are only scraping the surface.

You obviously missed the part where I said there isn’t much I can say about the book, right now, as it is in pre-publication mode. But we can certainly debate the topic – and you can be as dismissively demeaning as you’d like – when it comes out.

As for me saying that I am not going to discuss my book in detail before it has hit its publish date, that stands. You are just going to have to “grow up” and realize that just because you demand it doesn’t mean you’ll get it. My young sons had to learn that very lesson, themselves, today, but it had more to do with an altercation over toys and Scooby Doo fruit snacks.

But maybe if you stomp your feet a little louder, you might make me change my mind…

So what? So has the Pyramid of Cheops, and they thought they knew everything there was to know about it. The Academic Community almost completely dismissed Khufu as the builder. Until recent papyri.

Dude. You’re talking about a free-standing monument to support your claim of ‘NOBODY HAS SEEN THIS BEFORE’. Don’t try and reference never-before-seen scrolls – it’s not that new documents don’t enter the records, it’s htat you pretty specifically said that the stele (BTW, the ‘guardian”s name isn’t a secret. There’s only one dude who has that job, and his name is public record, as the Antiquities Chief of Egypt. It’s just a question of whether you met with the prior or the current one. Or, you know, neither – There’s about a zero% chance that dude was all ZOMG YOU CAN’T REVEAL MY NAME)

There, frankly, isn’t much about Egypt that hasn’t been known, at least in some form, for nearly two centuries, Rutee. Serabit el Khadim and the Temple of Hathor included.

Hold up, weren’t you not one hour ago dissembling on how we don’t know everything about the past, and that’s why we must allow ancient alienists to speak on Egypt (or any other area)? And you know, again, you’re just saying vague records you won’t reference in detail – you know we catalogue this shit, right? If your references to an exodus event exist, you can go ahead and cite them right now, but I think we both know you’re bullshitting us. I don’t even think you’ve been in an egypt exhibit at your local museum (‘hathor the cow goddess’ indeed), much less Luxor at this point.

So, you expressing to me that Serabit el Khadim has been known and examined for 200 years was to accomplish… what, precisely? Another post for you to express your dislike of me? Or just another pissing on the fire hydrant session?

…Are you joking? You alleged that your evidence for the exodus event was found on stele at a site well combed over. Either you have to pretend you’re the only one who read it correctly, or that nobody else has seen it, for this story to work as evidence for an exodus event.

And thus you have spoken without so much as having had the advantage of reading my manuscript or even knowing what I have written.

I know you haven’t referenced any alleged contemporary documents in this conversation, and that you’ve been an evasive little shit who’s relying on me not knowing what you’re talking about, much like your rubes. Seriously, there is no way on earth, heaven, or hell a stele attached to a major dig site contains any evidence you need for your theory.

No wonder you guys have such a bad reputation. You claim to be academics, but don’t think the rules apply to you, as well.

Go on, bro, I wanna hear the records that confirm an exodus event. Any time you’re ready.

So, just for the hell of it, what is my “illegitimate research” composed of…? Since you are so familiar with what I have written…

Scottyroberts, it may come as a surprise to you, but have you failed in providing ANYTHING beyond claims. Why should you matter again when you are have only brought a lack of validity?

Frankly, Flib, I didn’t come in here making any claims. hahahaha. I came in here to tell PZ he would be treated with the utmost of respect and courtesy at the Paradigm Symposium.

t was you guys who launched into diminutions, jibes, epithet hurling, charges of misogynist, racism and every “ism” in-between, followed up by question after question after question, each one being rounded with an implied, “you are full of bullshit, but if you don’t answer my question the way I feel it should be answered, you are even fuller of bullshittiness.”

as I have said before: you wonder why people go screaming to weird cults and pseudo science? Because of people like you who represent the “reasoned, thinking, we-are-always-right scientific community. If people want that brand of bullshit, they can just go to church. “Why get it where they have to think, too. Science science… its filled with assholes who have the social skills of a mud pit,” they say.

You guys need a good PR firm.

And, for the record, I am unphased by it, but it does get tiring. I am not here to answer everyone’s charges. But I do try to do my best. But I am also a GUY. Ask me questions, but keep poking me with your stupid sticks and your inability to be civil, and I’m gonna get tired of it.

And then you’ve won your calm back. No one rippling the surface of your waters. No one spreading the dreaded “Woooo” on your turf. How cool are you guys! How incredibly talented and educated! What marvels of society and human existence you are! Jesus Christ, I wish I was so elite!

And you drive people away from what’s at the core of real science – asking questions and working to find answers. Only problem is, everyone here already has all the answers – even before they do their research… well, because they just just know so damned well how everything works and everyone thinks.

And the sad thing is, this little diatribe will mean nothing. Why? Because I don’t count. I am a fuckwitted purveyor of woo. So they say. And when someone sticks around long enough to attempt to make any headway, they re denounced as “talking to much and taking yup too many posts.” But if you get fed up and leave, they all go stroking their big dicks that hey made another one run off.

And next, if you say anything like what I’ve said above, you’re a whiner. What a load of crap.

So, Flib, I wasn’t here to bring validity to anything. What the hell makes you think I was?

Nerds “immaturity” accompanies a reasonable request for you to back up your woo-whether it is your belief in ancient aliens or your pseudo Exodus event. The former has exactly zero proof. The latter is only a matter of significance in the bible and also has a lack of proof to back it up. Outside of that, any exodus is meaningless. That you are attempting to lend credibility to anything biblical speaks volumes about how deep in pseudoscience and delusion you are swimming in.
Your investment in pseudoscientific, illogical nonsense is on display so often when you post. When anyone asks for proof because they dont believe you, you never deliver.
Scotty: where is your proof that the biblibcal exodus occured (and if your contention is that you are referring to some OTHER exodus, why would anyone care)?
Where is your proof that aliens exist, let alone visited this planet long ago, let alone helped construct marvelous structures thst ancient peoples could not?

So then, Scottyroberts, you fully admit that you are in fact talking out of your ass? You never came here with an interest in anything academic to begin with? Because if you want to have any of your bullshit that you are trying to defend actually mean anything, you need to back it up. And if your point in coming here has nothing to do with your bullshit, why did you even bother bringing up your bullshit? Why are you even trying to make a taunting statement about the “academics” here when your actions are so clearly wankery with nothing else behind it? For your little shitty attitude of acting like a big shot, you sure are avoiding anything that could back even that up.

So, as said. Either put up or shut up. Are you that so far removed from science that you can’t make that basic act?

Flib,
You guys are masters of turning people’s words around to suit your brand of diminution.

And, Flib, I don;t just suck things out of my ass, I back them up plenty. Do you really think that the last two days on this forum is the sum total of how I “back up” any claim I might be making? Seriously?

My life and work are spent backing up things that I claim. The unrelenting notion is that this group exists as the place for anyone to back up their claims.

And,m no, I didn’t come here to back up any claim in the last two days. I came here to (and I;ll say it for the twelfth time) Answer the unfounded charges that PZ would not be treated with the utmost of respect at the Paradigm Symposium.

When did that turn into my having to defend the claims of every and anyone who feels its their turn to lob something at me? And frankly, since when is discussing someone’s claims done in such a haphazard, ill-focused, belittling, demeaning forum?

Its rather like this…
“Flib? Is it really “FLIB?” We all know that for centuries FLOIB is an acronym for Fachverband Luftdichtheit im Bauwesen. So where the fuck do you come off thinking you have the right to call yourself FLIB? Are you some sort of believer in the airtightness of buildings in Germany? You know, that country that was the home to the Nazi party? I’ll bet your airtightness of buildings theory is all about prepping the way for a new holocaust. We’ve got your number, FLIB, you fuckwitted Nazi who thinks he can pull one over os we educated people.”

Then you read that bullshit and comment in response. “What the fuck are you talking about?”

And then you hear back from seven more people telling you to stop your childish whining, and that they’ve got you pegged, and that your research on airtight buildings is flawed and full of holes and that you need to stop evading their questions.

And that is what this board is all about.

Have you seriously taken any sort of objective look at the way business is conducted on this thread, dude?

And, no I didn’t come in here to make claims. I came here to reply to PZ’s thread title. Which I did in my very first post.

We’re so terrible that you try to swathe yourself in the wrappings of our work.

I do? When did I do that? I don’t feel swathed at all.

lol. questions like ‘why shouldn’t we entertain the notion of an exodus event we have no evidential support for?’

I never asked that question. And when did you become the authority on the issue? And what part of what I have written in my book falls under your claim that I have no evidential support?

I am not evading your questions, you just simply aren’t asking any. You’re attempting to dismantle me on the topic alone before you know anything about what I have written. Why do you deserve to get to ask any questions at all…? On the basis of your vacuous claim that the research you haven’t seen doesn’t align with your conclusions?

Your not just a bullshitter, Rutee, your magical.

Ooo, so snippy about the fact that some of us might happen to know that the charlatan’s a charlatan.

I prefer “mountebank.” Go Shakespeare.

…the ones in your book, for one. XD

You won’t know what those are until the release date. So what about those claims do you think I have wrong?

So, explain to me again why you are wanking about being an “academic” when you’ve failed the basic tenants of it again? Why should I trust your word about your capabilities of being one when you’ve so clearly showed yourself as a failure here in the first place? Why are you trying to fall back to “I only came here to taunt PZ, not dangle my supposed ‘expertise’ like a carrot but not actually give it any substance”?

In case you weren’t aware, you can go back and read your own efforts here of doing exactly that. Your bullshit remains bullshit.

Why are you trying to fall back to “I only came here to taunt PZ, not dangle my supposed ‘expertise’ like a carrot but not actually give it any substance”?

I could have sworn I just told you something completely different, dude. Where did you get that I came here to “taunt” PZ?? Where did you read that? When did I ever say that?

Better yet, ask PZ if he believes I came here to “taunt” him pr to assure him that he would not be treated disrespectfully at the Paradigm Symposium.

And if any of you who believe me to be some sort of woo-peddling charlatan insist my intentions were anything but honorable, here, you would have to be deliberately lying through your teeth.

And when did I ever say, “I’m an academic.” At what point do you believe I was “dangling my expertise?” And please quantify for me what “bullshit” you are referring to. And try to do that right away without reading back to try to find something… go with what you are implying you already know.

Frankly, Flib, I didn’t come in here making any claims. hahahaha. I came in here to tell PZ he would be treated with the utmost of respect and courtesy at the Paradigm Symposium.

That much is correct. You didn’t make any claims initially.
However, those of us who remember you from a prior thread recall much of what you claimed. In the course of the discussion in this thread, it was mentioned that your belief in Ancient Aliens is
A: unsubstantiated
and
B: racist
Both of which resulted in bringing your prior claims to light.

During the back and forth, you have been called names, yes. Yet for some reason, you continue to respond to the name calling rather than the requests for evidence for your beliefs.
You keep trying to focus on the tone here, rather than the substance of the requests.
You continue to act like there has been no substance.
You continue to misrepresent the requests made of you.
You continue to display a lack of understanding of critical thought.
You continue to act as if peddlers of woo (whether it is a priest or a dowser) have something legitimate to say about unscientific bullshit.
You continue to dodge and evade any and every request to provide evidence for your beliefs.
You make claims that people are too sensitive, without even once bothering to think that maybe you have a lack of sensitivity.
You display a lack of understanding that sexism and misogyny run deep in society (whether it is in the US or other countries around the world), one result of which is sexist opinions and misogynist views that many people have that they aren’t even aware of. When those views are criticized, or brought to light-specifically in your case-you vehemently deny them through the flimsiest of excuses (“I have family”), rather than owning up to the fact that you said something sexist or misogynist.
I will try, once again (as others have) to clear up the muck you’ve scattered to avoid delivering on any substance:
1- Do you accept this definition of science (in broad terms if not the exact, specific language used):

“the concerted human effort to understand, or to improve our understanding of the history of the natural world and how the natural world works”

Observable physical evidence forms the foundation of this understanding and it can be collected through made observations of natural phenomena or through well structured controlled experiments.

2- Based on what you’ve said in the past, it is apparent that you believe that Ancient Aliens are a reality. Where is your evidence for that? How (if you do so) do you make a distinction between what you *hope* is reality, and what the evidence actually say?

3- Given your opinion that Ancient Aliens exist, and are responsible for creating some of the wonders of the ancient world, I believe that you are displaying racist views. To say that ancient civilizations required outside assistance to build these wonders, shows that you think they were incapable of doing so on their own. You feel-though you haven’t expressed it verbally (I think this is because you haven’t thought things through far enough to get to this point)-that they could NOT have done so without outside help. To make such an assertion is to believe, implicitly, that those ancient people were inferior in some way. The charge of racism stems from this.

4- Your opinion that the Exodus is a real event that occured in history is not supported by evidence. What is your evidence that the Exodus occured? Directing people to your book is not evidence. What primary sources did you cite in your book that support your contention?
a. As mentioned before, if you are not referring to the biblical Exodus, then what is the point to discussing *any* exodus.

A pseudoscience is a belief or process which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms; it is often known as fringe- or alternative science. The most important of its defects is usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement.http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html

Why do you believe dowsing is anything other than woo? If you believe dowsing is effective at finding hidden objects or liquids, what is the evidence you have to support this belief? If you lack the evidence, why do you believe dowsing is effective?

6- Do you find it reasonable to hold beliefs or ideas that lack scientific credibility (i.e. beliefs that lack sufficient evidence, or beliefs that do not consistently hold up to specific, structured, controlled experiments)?

<blockquote?I know you haven’t referenced any alleged contemporary documents in this conversation, and that you’ve been an evasive little shit who’s relying on me not knowing what you’re talking about, much like your rubes. Seriously, there is no way on earth, heaven, or hell a stele attached to a major dig site contains any evidence you need for your theory.

Well, herein lies the problem, Rutee, I haven’t stated my theory, so how do you know that the stele I am referring to has no bearing on it? The stele I am referring to merely establishes a co-regency that is part of my theory.

If this is the way you conduct your research and draw your conclusions, why ought anyone trust you? You are making gross assumptions on something I already said that I won’t be talking about in great detail in this forum.

That’s not being “evasive.” Its stating emphatically that I won’t be discussing that here. You seem to not see the distinction, because your bias is already set.

However, those of us who remember you from a prior thread recall much of what you claimed. In the course of the discussion in this thread, it was mentioned that your belief in Ancient Aliens is…

But, Tony, this is precisely the problem, here. I never claimed to be a “believer” in Ancient Aliens. It was all of you who insisted that I was because I gave them a platform and asked them questions.

I even said that I found the notion of pale-contact intriguing, but that there was no proof. I then posited the ancient alien notion as something that might be worth research. And that’s when the shit hit the fan.

scottyroberts:
Well, obviously I disagree.
However, before I go *any* further…

PZ:
In trying to adhere to the rules you instituted when you reset things at Pharyngula last year (?), I’m curious if I have violated this:

Reset. One persistent problem here is that the regulars develop a history, and at times, it is utterly stultifying. You don’t let grudges go, you resurrect long-dead arguments, you start citing passages from year-old comment threads. Stop it. It inhibits people from changing, and it poisons every discussion with ancient irritations that most people don’t know anything about. Every time I start a new thread, pretend I asked you to look into a little red light, and poof, everything is reset. Treat each comment as an argument unto itself. Linking to old comments to demonstrate the perfidy of a commenter, rather than linking to evidence to refute the commenter’s claims, will be regarded as an abuse of the principle of charity. I am aware that this rule could be abused by repetitious jackholes who make the same claims in every thread and then run away from your answers, but let me do the enforcement.

As much as I stand behind everything I’ve said to scottyroberts in this thread, having re-read this policy, I can see that I have likely violated it. Yeah, it is hard to not bring past interactions into play in a new thread, but clearly it has happened (again, for me).

scottyroberts, unless PZ says otherwise, I will not continue interacting with you as I have in this thread.

1- Do you accept this definition of science (for space, I won’t paste the entire comment here)

Yes.

2- Based on what you’ve said in the past, it is apparent that you believe that Ancient Aliens are a reality. Where is your evidence for that? How (if you do so) do you make a distinction between what you *hope* is reality, and what the evidence actually say?

Again – and I said this months ago – I do NOT subscribe to the ancient alien theory. I am NOT a “believer” in ancient alien theory. I have said repeatedly over the last year that the theory is intriguing and interesting, but that there is absolutely no proof to back the claims. This is why I keep wondering why you all think I am such a huge proponent of the notion.

3- Given your opinion that Ancient Aliens exist, and are responsible for creating some of the wonders of the ancient world, I believe that you are displaying racist views…

That is not my opinion. I further do not believe ancient aliens built anything. If there is any possible truth to the notion, it has not yet been proven, therefore, as for now, does not exist.

Are there limitless possibilities? Sure. But we don’t know with any reasonable fact what they are. So the notions need to remain in the notion category, not the proven. While I entertain the dialog, and open the floor to proponents of the notions, I do not adhere to it. And just because i do not adhere to it does not mean I think I know everything. You can criticize me for that, but you can’t say I am an adherent or a proponent. I merely take interest and want to hear what they have to say.

And I said this all before.

4- Your opinion that the Exodus is a real event that occured in history is not supported by evidence. What is your evidence that the Exodus occured? Directing people to your book is not evidence. What primary sources did you cite in your book that support your contention?

First, I said it was a real event, but more than likely not as we learned the tale in sunday school or synagogue. There is far too much religious legend and mythology surrounding the story, so the first thing you have to do is throw out what you think you know.

I did not “direct people to my book” as evidence. I said repeatedly that I am not going to discuss my research in that book in this forum, at this time. Jesus, simply respect that request without labeling me as some charlatan for it.

What the hell is wrong with saying, “Not right now.”? And this is what leads to my citations of disrespect in this forum… respect my request without jumping to conclusions. When you do that, you are no better than what you decry.

Why do you believe dowsing is anything other than woo? If you believe dowsing is effective at finding hidden objects or liquids, what is the evidence you have to support this belief?

I don’t really know that I have established any sort of belief on dowsing, as of yet. And I never said dowsing was “effective.”

All I said in these posts today is that I saw someone I trust as a friend and colleague show me how he has used the rods. He then let me try, and it seemed to do exactly what he said it would do. Granted, I have made a 12-month daily study of the efficacy of diving rods, but the repeated times I tried them over a couple of days while in Egypt, they did precisely what they were supposed to do. And I am no slouch when putting something to the test – I do understand the rules of the scientific method and the testing of theory. The only difference was that the theory was not new, nor was it my friend’s.

He had even been asked to come and map out some of the underground water chambers at the Medinat Habu temple site on the West Bank in Luxor, where he lives. It turned out that his map was bloody on-the-mark accurate. But since he wasn’t setting out to try to prove anything to catterwaulling academics, he doesn’t have notes and recordings and etc, etc, etc of that particular project.

When I was back home, I tested them out again. There was something I was missing, and the rods directed me to them. There was no fumbling around or messing with them. They simply repeatedly pointed to locations from different starting points and turns along the way. Of course it made me laugh, as it felt a bit uncanny and unscientific, but it worked.

The problem with all this is that its merely anecdotal. I would have to put the things to much more rigorous testing to launch any sort of “I believe in dowsing rods” campaign – which is also a misnomer, as the rods our simply inanimate pieces of metal. So what makes them do what they do? The power of mu mind? haha. If my mind has that ability then why are we even quibbling over it.

As for me, I want to know the answers. It is the same with everything I do and everything I wrote about. I want to know the answers.

Said it in the last thread, I’ll say it again. For someone who claims to not believe in AA, you get awfully defensive when someone points the holes in the hypothesis’ claims.

I have never heard an AA theorist push any sort of notion that “brown skinned peoples needed extra help” because of the color of their skin. As a matter of fact, they extend their theories of ancient alien intercession to pre-Celts and caucasian pre-european races

Sure, none of them will say that out loud, but the implicit assumptions are inescapably racist.
The truth is, none of them will say the Parthenon, the Coliseum or fucking Notre Dame was the work of aliens, because the European contemporaries of the ancient Chinese, the Nazca and the Khmer get a free pass on needing ancient aliens to build their stuff for them. AA is a racist hypothesis because its raison d’étre is incredulity at the notion that non-Europeans could do engineering.

Well, herein lies the problem, Rutee, I haven’t stated my theory, so how do you know that the stele I am referring to has no bearing on it? The stele I am referring to merely establishes a co-regency that is part of my theory.

Of course you didn’t “state” your hypothesis, because you’re under the illusion that being vague and mysterious will make your story seem more credible. Too bad someone here knows their shit.

And you drive people away from what’s at the core of real science – asking questions and working to find answers.

Nope, working to find evidence and following the evidence to reach conclusions. Not ask inane questions and come up with inane answers you try to justify with imagufactured bullshit. That’s what you and creationists do, invent lies and distortions and claim your fantansies are proven. Once the total evidence is ignored, you aren’t doing science. We know that. You should know that. But that requires you to be honest….

Vaiyt,
Its not about being “vague and mysterious.” I think all I said was that I wasn’t going to discuss it, right now in this forum until after the publication date. Wow… that statement is shrouded in vagary and mystery, isn’t it?

Eurasian,
I think I just answered that question. Here it is again – don’t blink, its short and sweet – Yes, as a sampling. It is a simple article introducing an idea, with no bibliography and without Dr. Ward’s theories being presented. The article focusing on one small facet of the book.

And for the record, PZ will experience respect and courtesy at the Paradigm Symposium. No lynch mobs, no heckling. He will be given the same respect as other guest speakers. Its not about heckling and jeering if you disagree, its about inviting him to our platform to present his ideas.

That is the topic I came here to respond to. I am curious why it turns into several people questioning what I think and write and whether or not I am a racist, a misogynist, an ancient alien theorist, etc, etc, etc.

You are all welcome to contact me personally and we can discuss things. If you are local, I will even meet you for a beer.

And for the record, PZ will experience respect and courtesy at the Paradigm Symposium.

Gee, you think courtesy means something. It simply means everybody will be wearing earplugs, not attending, or chatting amongst themselves. They will not be listening to learn something. That requires a mind open to rationality.

It is, indeed, a sampling.

Don’t even need to look. Nothing any serious scientist is interested in. Ideas are not evidence. They are mental wanking.

You are also all welcome to come and interact with me on my FaceBook page. Sure, it’ll be a bit different than the sort of interaction that goes on in here, but that might be refreshing for a change of scenery…

Gee, you think courtesy means something. It simply means everybody will be wearing earplugs, not attending, or chatting amongst themselves. They will not be listening to learn something. That requires a mind open to rationality.

Yes, Nerd, courtesy matters. Even when you don’t see eye-to-eye. Did your mother teach you nothing…?

And for the record, PZ will experience respect and courtesy at the Paradigm Symposium. No lynch mobs, no heckling. He will be given the same respect as other guest speakers. Its not about heckling and jeering if you disagree, its about inviting him to our platform to present his ideas.

Well, yes. Way, way back at the beginning of this thread a couple of us worried that maybe PZ would be heckled, a few of us said they thought that was unlikely, PZ came in to agree that he would probably be treated well, and then you came in to reassure us all that yes, indeed, it would all be very nice. That was well over 200 posts ago.

You seem to have gotten sidetracked.

Back at #14 I threw out a couple of reasons for why PZ might have been invited to present at a symposium where he will so obviously be an outsider (yes, there are internal disagreements between speakers but not this drastic.) After after slogging through this thread I think my first suggestion was spot on — and my 2nd one is a good possibility.

1.) The people putting this together really think the science supports them and they believe they can hold their ground against a critic.

I think you think this. I think you think you are presenting an open forum for researchers and scientists and thinkers with ‘minority’ status to talk amongst themselves, sort of like The Edge or TED talks. This is because you define science this way:

… what’s at the core of real science – asking questions and working to find answers.

You forgot one of the most important parts, and this is what you are being hammered on: peer review. Science is a search for consensus among experts in the field. You have to work to find answers WITHIN the community, not down in some mad scientists lair where you’ll be unhampered by criticism. By providing an open and welcoming forum for ‘researchers’ who complain about not getting a fair hearing from the scientific community you’re doing an end run around the very people who provide the necessary checks and balances against error. As great and powerful as he is, PZ Myers up there all by his lonesome is not going to provide the balanced “criticism” which comes out of real peer review, in journals. This is a show, not a scientific conference.

This has nothing to do with thinking I already “know it all.” It has to do with basic humility. The overwhelming likelihood is that ALL of your Brave Maverick Scientists are going to remain on the fringe because the problem has never been that they’ve got new and different ideas which “can’t get a fair hearing from the scientific community.” It’s that the community left them and their old ideas behind a long time ago.

Face it: if anyone really had something groundbreaking to report, the powerful scientific conspiracy meanies would be trying to steal credit for it, not dismiss it. Reality is real, and it bites. You win by showing that the authorities are WRONG. But you can only do that by using the rules and convincing the authorities. You can’t do that by making popular appeals to people who pride themselves on how much they love to entertain and think about and consider the possibility of Weird Things.

And my second suggestion:

2.) They’re hoping you rant, rave, or do other things which will show everybody what happens when you become a materialist atheist skeptic meanie.

Ok, while you know PZ is a not personally likely to “rant,” your diatribe at #226 is revealing. You go on and on and on about how ‘science’ is being rejected because of people like us:

as I have said before: you wonder why people go screaming to weird cults and pseudo science? Because of people like you who represent the “reasoned, thinking, we-are-always-right scientific community. If people want that brand of bullshit, they can just go to church. “Why get it where they have to think, too. Science science… its filled with assholes who have the social skills of a mud pit,” they say.
You guys need a good PR firm.

No. We do not need a good PR firm. You and the other people in the Symposium need to get over the idea that personal charisma, charm, and character is what science is all about.

One dipshit being deliberately obtuse to hide their lack of evidence does not a conspiracy make.

what’s at the core of real science – asking questions and working to find answers.

Science is a tool to investigate reality. All questions have to start with reality – that is, evidence. Your woo woo bullshit peddlers don’t have any. They don’t have a leg to stand on. They want to ask questions that don’t need answers. They want to discuss how many angels can dance on a pin without stablishing if angels exist first. Their questions are as valid to real science as questions about the accuracy of Stormtroopers in Star Wars.

Its great seeing everyone’s dissertations on Catholicism. I would say that the easiest answers to your questions would be to ask Ashcraft directly. I am sure he he could answer these sorts of questions much better than I, as I am not a Catholic, never have been, nor do I study it.

…Don’t you at least study it to the extent that you understand what he says, and what he published with you as the editor?

Do you understand how firmly he believes that you’ll go to big-H Hell if you don’t come to believe exactly as he does?

Skepticism and atheism I don’t hold as any better a credential than being a theist, as that is simply a choice made to believe or disbelieve.

Quite the opposite: there’s no choice involved. I don’t get to choose whether gods exist. I don’t get to choose what reality is like. I’m not capable of believing without evidence, and I apportion the strength of my beliefs to the strength of the evidence.

Oh no.

I did it. I looked up ‘John Ward Egypt.’

“Solid Scholarship.” Dear, sweet, scottyroberts.

All seconded.

John explained it something governed by the mind and physical energy of objects – nothing spooky or metaphysical. I don’t remember if it was magnetic energy or how he described it.

Uh, that sounds entirely spooky and metaphysical to me. Magnetic? Most materials used for dowsing rods completely ignore magnetic fields within orders of magnitude of any strength that occurs in the wild. Sure, a willow twig will bend away from a magnetic field of ten teslas, and so will you and I; but look up how much that is.

David Marjanović,
I read those five pages and I think they are pretty damned tight.
Good stuff.

…You seem to have no idea how offensive this response is.

Those pages make many, many points that contradict your statements, even your forthcoming book. First, by calling them “good stuff”, you contradict yourself – unless you’ve changed your opinion within this thread, of which you’ve otherwise given no indication. Secondly, you don’t mention any single point they make – that might mean you agree with them all, but in that case we’re back at the first problem. If you don’t agree, then what, and why? For instance, what about the point that there’s no archeological evidence from the Sinai (or elsewhere) for any halfway large number of people passing through? Do you disagree? If so, why?

Nerd, you must be a psychic. So accurate is your prediction. Here is a sample of scotty’s “scholarship”. Is it representative of the contents and style of your coming book, scottyroberts?

If so, that’s… bad. It shows an extremely credulous attitude towards the supposed biography of Moses in the book of Exodus. You ask why Moses went into hiding for so long; you should ask whether he went into hiding, indeed whether he even existed.

You should also ask why Exodus treats “Pharaoh” as a name. It says “Pharaoh, king of Egypt” all the time and never gets the idea that anything else than “Pharaoh” might be the poor guy’s name. Notably, 2 Kings doesn’t do such ridiculous things; it doesn’t hide the names of pharaohs and doesn’t confuse those names with the job description. How come?

(BTW, the dress you drew on Hatshepsut is laughably anachronistic. But that has nothing to do with the text as far as I can tell.)

what’s at the core of real science – asking questions and working to find answers.

Nope.

At the core is the question: “If I were wrong, how would I know?”

When you have an idea, try to disprove it. Try very hard. If you fail, write it up and submit it to a journal; the editor then sends it out for peer review, so that a few colleagues can try to disprove it; if they, too, fail, the manuscript is accepted for publication, and then everybody can try.

A manuscript of mine that got accepted a few days ago is all about mistakes I made in my 2007 paper.

Science isn’t about finding answers, it’s about disproving supposed answers. It isn’t so much a quest for truth as a quest for all falsehood.

Yes, Nerd, courtesy matters. Even when you don’t see eye-to-eye. Did your mother teach you nothing…?

Courtesy doesn’t matter for everything. In particular, it doesn’t matter at all for finding out which ideas are wrong.

No. We do not need a good PR firm. You and the other people in the Symposium need to get over the idea that personal charisma, charm, and character is what science is all about.

That goes especially for Dr John “Dr” Ward. “Look at me! I have a whole doctorate! How sciency of me!” *eyeroll*

Ward, I believe it was, told how it is that although the religious will have to think outside of their box somewhat, 80% bolsters the faith, even saying that it supports “dogma.” Scotty’s babbling about his belief that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the Torah. Oh sure, he’s slippery, not sure about anything, but treating things that are almost entirely questions as if they were sources and data.

There isn’t much in the program, really. I think it’s interesting, though, that two quite different scenarios are presented in the book, almost as if getting the answer didn’t matter, just being apologetics to bolster the beliefs of the believers. Good for sales, not very good for any sort of science or decent scholarship.

I suspect that John Ward’s “KT” stands for “Knight Templar”. The Paradigm info page says that he was recruited by the Knights Templar of Britannia.

Ward has a fucked-up academia.edu page, where he seems to be claiming that he wrote works which it’s obvious that he did not write. Why he has that is beyond me.

As for his “doctorate” . . .

The investigated topics presented above resulted in a full Honorary Ph. Doctorate presented through the Knights Templar of Britannia, recognized by the Vatican, for his professional dedicational work on Medieval History and Egyptology.